1
|
Knoedler S, Jiang J, Moog P, Alfertshofer M, Machens HG, Kehrer A, Hundeshagen G, Knoedler L, Könneker S, Kim BS, Orgill DP, Panayi AC. Preventive Paradox? Postoperative Outcomes After Risk-Reducing Mastectomy and Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction. Clin Breast Cancer 2024:S1526-8209(24)00235-0. [PMID: 39304386 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2024.08.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2024] [Revised: 08/26/2024] [Accepted: 08/27/2024] [Indexed: 09/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) with direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction is becoming increasingly important in breast cancer prevention. While the oncological benefits of RRM-DTI are well documented, there is a paucity of studies investigating its perioperative safety. METHODS The ACS-NSQIP database (2008-2022) was queried to identify all patients who underwent RRM-DTI. Outcomes of interest included 30-day occurrence of reoperation, readmission, and surgical and medical complications. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with postoperative complications. RESULTS A total of 1019 patients were included, with a mean age and BMI of 42.8 ± 10.9 years and 25.7 ± 5.8 kg/m², respectively. Complications occurred in 142 (14.0%) cases, with 103 (10.1%) reoperations and 51 (5.0%) readmissions. 62 (6.3%) surgical complications were recorded, the majority of which were superficial incisional infection (n = 19; 1.9%) and organ space infections (n = 19; 1.9%). Medical complications were rare (n = 13; 1.3%). Multivariable analyses revealed that higher BMI was significantly associated with any (OR:1.06, P < .0001), surgical (OR:1.08, P < .0001), and medical complications (OR:1.08, P = .04). Patients with bleeding disorders were at a significantly higher risk of any complications (OR:5.5, P = .03), while outpatient setting (OR:1.9, P = .03) and corticosteroid use (OR:6.6, P = .01) were identified as independent predictors of surgical complications. CONCLUSION The risk of adverse events following RRM-DTI should not be underestimated, with a 30-day complication rate of 14%. Higher BMI, bleeding disorders, outpatient setting, and corticosteroid use were identified as risk factors. These findings underscore the need for thorough preoperative risk stratification, patient counseling, and health optimization to optimize surgical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel Knoedler
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Jun Jiang
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Philipp Moog
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Michael Alfertshofer
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Hans-Guenther Machens
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Andreas Kehrer
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Gabriel Hundeshagen
- Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Trauma Center. BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany
| | - Leonard Knoedler
- Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany; Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Trauma Center. BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany
| | - Sören Könneker
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Bong-Sung Kim
- Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Dennis P Orgill
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
| | - Adriana C Panayi
- Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Trauma Center. BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Meshkani Z, Moradi N, Aboutorabi A, Farabi H, Moini N. A cost-benefit analysis of genetic screening test for breast cancer in Iran. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:279. [PMID: 38429685 PMCID: PMC10905849 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12003-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2023] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 03/03/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to evaluate the implementation of the population- and family history (FH) -based screening for BReast CAncer (BRCA) in Iran, a country where less than 10% of breast cancer cases are attributable to a gene mutation. METHODS This was an economic evaluation study. The Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) for genetic screening test strategies in Iranian women older than 30 was calculated. To this end, the monetary value of the test was estimated using the willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach using the contingent valuation method (CVM) by payment card. From a healthcare perspective, direct medical and non-medical costs were considered and a decision model for the strategies was developed to simulate the costs. A one-way sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the analysis. The data were analyzed using Excel 2010. RESULTS 660 women were included for estimating WTP and 2,176,919 women were considered in the costing model. The cost per genetic screening test for population- and FH-based strategies was $167 and $8, respectively. The monetary value of a genetic screening test was $20 and it was $27 for women with a family history or gene mutation in breast cancer. The BCR for population-based and FH-based screening strategies was 0.12 and 3.37, respectively. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS This study recommends the implementation of a FH-based strategy instead of a population-based genetic screening strategy in Iran, although a cascade genetic screening test strategy should be evaluated in future studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zahra Meshkani
- Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
- Health Management and Economics Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, 13833-19967, Tehran, Iran.
| | - Najmeh Moradi
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
| | - Ali Aboutorabi
- Department of Health Economics, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Hiro Farabi
- Barts and The London Pragmatic Clinical Trial Unit, Centre for Evaluation and Methods, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Nazi Moini
- Breast Cancer Research Centre, Motamed Cancer Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Cammarata E, Toia F, Rossi M, Cipolla C, Vieni S, Speciale A, Cordova A. Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction after Risk-Reducing Mastectomy in BRCA Mutation Carriers: A Single-Center Retrospective Study. Healthcare (Basel) 2023; 11:1741. [PMID: 37372859 PMCID: PMC10298386 DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11121741] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/08/2023] [Revised: 06/09/2023] [Accepted: 06/12/2023] [Indexed: 06/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Women with BRCA gene mutations have a higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Furthermore, cancer is usually diagnosed at a younger age compared to the wild-type counterpart. Strategies for risk management include intensive surveillance or risk-reducing mastectomy. The latter provides a significant reduction of the risk of developing breast cancer, simultaneously ensuring a natural breast appearance due to the preservation of the skin envelope and the nipple-areola complex. Implant-based breast reconstruction is the most common technique after risk-reducing surgery and can be achieved with either a submuscular or a prepectoral approach, in one or multiple stages. This study analyzes the outcomes of the different reconstructive techniques through a retrospective review on 46 breasts of a consecutive, single-center case series. Data analysis was carried out with EpiInfo version 7.2. Results of this study show no significant differences in postoperative complications between two-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction and direct-to-implant (DTI) reconstruction, with DTI having superior aesthetic outcomes, especially in the prepectoral subgroup. In our experience, the DTI prepectoral approach has proven to be a safe and less time-consuming alternative to the submuscular two-stage technique, providing a pleasant reconstructed breast and overcoming the drawbacks of subpectoral implant placement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emanuele Cammarata
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127 Palermo, Italy
| | - Francesca Toia
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127 Palermo, Italy
| | - Matteo Rossi
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127 Palermo, Italy
| | - Calogero Cipolla
- Oncological Surgery Unit, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127 Palermo, Italy
| | - Salvatore Vieni
- Oncological Surgery Unit, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127 Palermo, Italy
| | - Antonino Speciale
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127 Palermo, Italy
| | - Adriana Cordova
- Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 129, 90127 Palermo, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ohsumi S, Nakamura S, Miyata H, Watanabe C, Den H, Arai M. Risk-reducing mastectomy for women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC): analytical results of data from the Japanese Organization of HBOC. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2022; 52:1265-1269. [PMID: 35905458 DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyac120] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2021] [Accepted: 07/09/2022] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-reducing mastectomy is one option for women with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer to reduce the risk of breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS We analyzed data of the Japanese Organization of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer on women who were diagnosed as hereditary breast and ovarian cancer by BRCA germline genetic testing between 2010 and 2019 to reveal the rate and likelihood of risk-reducing mastectomy. RESULTS There were 412 women with BRCA1, 271 with BRCA2 and 4 with both female pathogenic variants. Ninety (13.1%) received risk-reducing mastectomy. The rates of risk-reducing mastectomy were statistically significantly higher in women with BRCA1 pathogenic variants than BRCA2, in women who had breast cancer than those who did not, in women with a breast cancer family history than in those without, in mothers than in those without children, in women who were receiving surveillance with MRI than those who were not and in women who received risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy than in those who did not on univariate analyses. The ages when they received the genetic testing were statistically significantly younger in the women receiving risk-reducing mastectomy than those who did not receive it. The women with BRCA1 pathogenic variants, personal history of breast cancer, mothers, those receiving MRI surveillance and younger women were independently significantly more likely to receive risk-reducing mastectomy based on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS The rate of risk-reducing mastectomy was not high in Japan; however, risk-reducing surgery was approved by the Japanese National Medical Insurance for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer patients with breast and/or ovarian cancer in 2020, so this rate will increase.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shozo Ohsumi
- Department of Breast Oncology, NHO Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, Japan
| | - Seigo Nakamura
- Division of Breast Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroaki Miyata
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Chie Watanabe
- School of Nursing and Rehabilitation Sciences, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Hiroki Den
- Department of Hygiene, Public Health, and Preventative Medicine, School of Medicine, Showa University, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Masami Arai
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Juntendo University, Graduate School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Mittendorf KF, Knerr S, Kauffman TL, Lindberg NM, Anderson KP, Feigelson HS, Gilmore MJ, Hunter JE, Joseph G, Kraft SA, Zepp JM, Syngal S, Wilfond BS, Goddard KAB. Systemic Barriers to Risk-Reducing Interventions for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Implications for Health Care Inequities. JCO Precis Oncol 2021; 5:PO.21.00233. [PMID: 34778694 PMCID: PMC8585306 DOI: 10.1200/po.21.00233] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2021] [Revised: 09/21/2021] [Accepted: 09/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Kathleen F. Mittendorf
- Department of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR
| | - Sarah Knerr
- School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
| | - Tia L. Kauffman
- Department of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR
| | - Nangel M. Lindberg
- Department of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR
| | | | | | - Marian J. Gilmore
- Department of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR
| | - Jessica Ezzell Hunter
- Department of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR
| | - Galen Joseph
- Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA
| | - Stephanie A. Kraft
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA
| | - Jamilyn M. Zepp
- Department of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR
| | - Sapna Syngal
- Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
- Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA
| | - Benjamin S. Wilfond
- Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, Seattle Children's Hospital and Research Institute, Seattle, WA
- Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA
| | - Katrina A. B. Goddard
- Department of Translational and Applied Genomics, Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Uptake of bilateral-risk-reducing-mastectomy: Prospective analysis of 7195 women at high-risk of breast cancer. Breast 2021; 60:45-52. [PMID: 34464846 PMCID: PMC8406355 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.08.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2021] [Revised: 08/23/2021] [Accepted: 08/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Bilateral-Risk-Reducing-Mastectomy-(BRRM) is well described in BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant carriers. However, little is known about the relative uptake, time trends or factors influencing uptake in those at increased breast cancer risk not known to be carriers. The aim of this study is to assess these factors in both groups. Methods BRRM uptake was assessed from entry to the Manchester Family History Clinic or from date of personal BRCA1/2 test. Follow up was censored at BRRM, breast cancer diagnosis, death or January 01, 2020. Cumulative incidence and cause specific and competing risk regression analyses were used to assess the significance of factors associated with BRRM. Results Of 7195 women at ≥25% lifetime breast cancer risk followed for up to 32 years, 451 (6.2%) underwent pre-symptomatic BRRM. Of those eligible in different risk groups the 20-year uptake of BRRM was 47.7%-(95%CI = 42.4–53.2%) in 479 BRCA1/2 carriers; 9.0% (95%CI = 7.26–11.24%) in 1261 women at ≥40% lifetime risk (non-BRCA), 4.8%-(95%CI = 3.98–5.73%) in 3561 women at 30–39% risk and 2.9%-(95%CI = 2.09–4.09%) in 1783 women at 25–29% lifetime risk. In cause-specific Cox regression analysis death of a sister with breast cancer<50 (OR = 2.4; 95%CI = 1.7–3.4), mother<60 (OR = 1.9; 95%CI = 1.5–2.3), having children (OR = 1.4; 95%CI = 1.1–1.8), breast biopsy (OR = 1.4; 95%CI = 1.0–1.8) were all independently associated with BRRM uptake, while being older at assessment was less likely to be associated with BRRM (>50; OR = 0.26,95%CI = 0.17–0.41). Uptake continued to rise to 20 years from initial risk assessment. Conclusion We have identified several additional factors that correlate with BRRM uptake and demonstrate continued increases over time. These factors will help to tailor counselling and support for women. BRRM continues even 20 years post original breast cancer risk assessment. Potential triggers include death of mother/sister, children and a breast biopsy. Uptake is clearly informed by lifetime risk of BC and higher in younger the women.
Collapse
|
7
|
Schrijver LH, Antoniou AC, Olsson H, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ, Azarang L, Adlard J, Ahmed M, Barrowdale D, Davidson R, Donaldson A, Eeles R, Evans DG, Frost D, Henderson A, Izatt L, Ong KR, Bonadona V, Coupier I, Faivre L, Fricker JP, Gesta P, van Engelen K, Jager A, Menko FH, Mourits MJE, Singer CF, Tan YY, Foretova L, Navratilova M, Schmutzler RK, Ellberg C, Gerdes AM, Caldes T, Simard J, Olah E, Jakubowska A, Rantala J, Osorio A, Hopper JL, Phillips KA, Milne RL, Beth Terry M, Noguès C, Engel C, Kast K, Goldgar DE, van Leeuwen FE, Easton DF, Andrieu N, Rookus MA. Oral contraceptive use and ovarian cancer risk for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: an international cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 225:51.e1-51.e17. [PMID: 33493488 PMCID: PMC8278569 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.01.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/06/2020] [Revised: 10/30/2020] [Accepted: 01/19/2021] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ovarian cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers has been shown to decrease with longer duration of oral contraceptive use. Although the effects of using oral contraceptives in the general population are well established (approximately 50% risk reduction in ovarian cancer), the estimated risk reduction in mutation carriers is much less precise because of potential bias and small sample sizes. In addition, only a few studies on oral contraceptive use have examined the associations of duration of use, time since last use, starting age, and calendar year of start with risk of ovarian cancer. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to investigate in more detail the associations of various characteristics of oral contraceptive use and risk of ovarian cancer, to provide healthcare providers and carriers with better risk estimates. STUDY DESIGN In this international retrospective study, ovarian cancer risk associations were assessed using oral contraceptives data on 3989 BRCA1 and 2445 BRCA2 mutation carriers. Age-dependent-weighted Cox regression analyses were stratified by study and birth cohort and included breast cancer diagnosis as a covariate. To minimize survival bias, analyses were left truncated at 5 years before baseline questionnaire. Separate analyses were conducted for each aspect of oral contraceptive use and in a multivariate analysis, including all these aspects. In addition, the analysis of duration of oral contraceptive use was stratified by recency of use. RESULTS Oral contraceptives were less often used by mutation carriers who were diagnosed with ovarian cancer (ever use: 58.6% for BRCA1 and 53.5% BRCA2) than by unaffected carriers (ever use: 88.9% for BRCA1 and 80.7% for BRCA2). The median duration of use was 7 years for both BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers who developed ovarian cancer and 9 and 8 years for unaffected BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers with ovarian cancer, respectively. For BRCA1 mutation carriers, univariate analyses have shown that both a longer duration of oral contraceptive use and more recent oral contraceptive use were associated with a reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer. However, in multivariate analyses, including duration of use, age at first use, and time since last use, duration of oral contraceptive use proved to be the prominent protective factor (compared with <5 years: 5-9 years [hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.12]; >10 years [hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.73]; Ptrend=.008). The inverse association between duration of use and ovarian cancer risk persisted for more than 15 years (duration of ≥10 years; BRCA1 <15 years since last use [hazard ratio, 0.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.43]; BRCA1 >15 years since last use [hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.59]). Univariate results for BRCA2 mutation carriers were similar but were inconclusive because of limited sample size. CONCLUSION For BRCA1 mutation carriers, longer duration of oral contraceptive use is associated with a greater reduction in ovarian cancer risk, and the protection is long term.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lieske H Schrijver
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Håkan Olsson
- Department of Oncology, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
| | - Thea M Mooij
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marie-José Roos-Blom
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Leyla Azarang
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Julian Adlard
- Yorkshire Regional Genetics Service, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Munaza Ahmed
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Daniel Barrowdale
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Rosemarie Davidson
- Department of Clinical Genetics, South Glasgow University Hospitals, Glasgow, United Kingdom
| | - Alan Donaldson
- Department of Clinical Genetics, St. Michael's Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Ros Eeles
- Oncogenetics Team, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Department of Genomic Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Debra Frost
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Alex Henderson
- Centre for Life, Institute of Genetic Medicine, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
| | - Louise Izatt
- Clinical Genetics, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Kai-Ren Ong
- West Midlands Regional Genetics Service, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Valérie Bonadona
- Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unités Mixtes de Recherche, Lyon, France; Centre Léon Bérard, Unité de Prévention et Epidémiologie Génétique, Lyon, France
| | - Isabelle Coupier
- Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montpellier, Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; Service de Génétique médicale et Oncogénétique, Montpellier, France; Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille Val d'Aurel, Montpellier, France
| | - Laurence Faivre
- Genomic and Immunotherapy Medical Institute, Hôpital d'Enfants, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France; Unité d'Oncogénétique, Centre de Lutte Contre le Cancer Georges François Leclerc, Dijon, France
| | | | - Paul Gesta
- Service d'Oncogénétique Régional Poitou-Charentes, Centre Hospitalier Georges Renon, Niort, France
| | - Klaartje van Engelen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Agnes Jager
- Department of Medical Oncology, Family Cancer Clinic, Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Fred H Menko
- Family Cancer Clinic, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marian J E Mourits
- Department of Gynaecology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Christian F Singer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Yen Y Tan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Lenka Foretova
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Marie Navratilova
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic
| | - Rita K Schmutzler
- Medical Faculty, University of Cologne and University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Carolina Ellberg
- Division of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | | | - Trinidad Caldes
- Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Instituto de Investigación Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer, Martin Lagos, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jacques Simard
- Genomics Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Edith Olah
- Department of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Anna Jakubowska
- Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland; Independent Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Genetic Diagnostics, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Johanna Rantala
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ana Osorio
- Human Genetics Group, Centro Nacional De Investigaciones Oncologicas, Madrid, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Raras, Madrid, Spain
| | - John L Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Kelly-Anne Phillips
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia; Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia
| | - Roger L Milne
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Mary Beth Terry
- Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY
| | - Catherine Noguès
- Département d'Anticipation et de Suivi des Cancers, Oncogénétique Clinique, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France; Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Sciences Economiques and Sociales de la Santé and Traitement de l'Information Médicale, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
| | - Christoph Engel
- Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig, Germany
| | - Karin Kast
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
| | - David E Goldgar
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Flora E van Leeuwen
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Nadine Andrieu
- Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Paris, France; Institut Curie, Paris, France; Mines ParisTech, Fontainebleau, Paris, France; Paris Sciences et Lettres University, Paris, France
| | - Matti A Rookus
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Rebitschek FG, Pashayan N, Widschwendter M, Wegwarth O. Do cancer risk and benefit-harm ratios influence women's consideration of risk-reducing mastectomy? A scenario-based experiment in five European countries. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0218188. [PMID: 31188874 PMCID: PMC6561593 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218188] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2019] [Accepted: 05/28/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Personal cancer risk assessments enable stratified care, for example, offering preventive surgical measures such as risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) to women at high risk for breast cancer. In scenario-based experiments, we investigated whether different benefit-harm ratios of RRM influence women's consideration of this, whether this consideration is influenced by women's perception of and desire to know their personal cancer risk, or by their intention to take a novel cancer risk-predictive test, and whether consideration varies across different countries. METHOD In January 2017, 1,675 women 40 to 75 years of age from five European countries-Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Italy, and Sweden-took part in an online scenario-based experiment. Six different scenarios of hypothetical benefit-harm ratios of RRM were presented in accessible fact box formats: Baseline risk/risk reduction pairings were 20/16, 20/4, 10/8, 10/2, 5/4, and 5/1 out of 1,000 women dying from breast cancer. RESULTS Varying the baseline risk of dying from breast cancer and the extent of risk reduction influenced the decision to consider RRM for 23% of women. Decisions varied by country, risk perception, and the intention to take a cancer risk-predictive test. Women who expressed a stronger intention to take such a test were more likely to consider having RRM. The desire to know one's risk of developing any female cancer in general moderated women's decisions, whereas the specific desire to know the risk of breast cancer did not. CONCLUSIONS In this hypothetical scenario-based study, only for a minority of women did the change in benefit-harm ratio inform their consideration of RRM. Because this consideration is influenced by risk perception and the intention to learn one's cancer risks via a cancer risk-predictive test, careful disclosure of different potential preventive measures and their benefit-harm ratios is necessary before testing for individual risk. Furthermore, information on risk testing should acknowledge country-specific sensitivities for benefit-harm ratios.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felix G. Rebitschek
- Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
- * E-mail:
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Odette Wegwarth
- Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
- Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Concerns and Expectations of Risk-Reducing Surgery in Women with Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Syndrome. J Clin Med 2019; 8:jcm8030313. [PMID: 30841601 PMCID: PMC6463153 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8030313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/31/2018] [Revised: 02/21/2019] [Accepted: 02/28/2019] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer syndrome (HBOC) carriers face complex decisions, which might affect their fertility and body image. Using an anonymous 40-items questionnaire we evaluated the expectations and concerns about Risk-Reducing Surgery (RRS) in 204 carriers. Participants are well-informed about the options to manage cancer risk, and women with previous cancer are more concerned with screening failure. Satisfaction with RR Mastectomy is high, even if many carriers are unsatisfied with reconstructed breast feel and nipple-areola complex tactile sensation and those with previous breast cancer report a change in their sexual habits. The decrease of libido and vaginal dryness are the most complained symptoms after RR Salpingo-Oophorectomy. Nevertheless, most carriers would choose RRS again, due to cancer risk or screening-related stress reduction. Women who deferred RRS are more afraid of menopausal symptoms and cancer risk than those who had undergone or declined surgery. Women who declined RRS feel well-informed and trust screening procedures. In conclusion, HBOC carriers consider themselves well-informed and able to choose the best option for their condition, would choose RRS again because of cancer risk and screening-related stress reduction, and those who delay RRS face a higher preoperative level of concern and need support.
Collapse
|
10
|
Schrijver LH, Olsson H, Phillips KA, Terry MB, Goldgar DE, Kast K, Engel C, Mooij TM, Adlard J, Barrowdale D, Davidson R, Eeles R, Ellis S, Evans DG, Frost D, Izatt L, Porteous ME, Side LE, Walker L, Berthet P, Bonadona V, Leroux D, Mouret-Fourme E, Venat-Bouvet L, Buys SS, Southey MC, John EM, Chung WK, Daly MB, Bane A, van Asperen CJ, Gómez Garcia EB, Mourits MJE, van Os TAM, Roos-Blom MJ, Friedlander ML, McLachlan SA, Singer CF, Tan YY, Foretova L, Navratilova M, Gerdes AM, Caldes T, Simard J, Olah E, Jakubowska A, Arver B, Osorio A, Noguès C, Andrieu N, Easton DF, van Leeuwen FE, Hopper JL, Milne RL, Antoniou AC, Rookus MA. Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast Cancer Risk: Retrospective and Prospective Analyses From a BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carrier Cohort Study. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2018; 2:pky023. [PMID: 31360853 PMCID: PMC6649757 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pky023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2018] [Revised: 03/16/2018] [Accepted: 04/24/2018] [Indexed: 02/02/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND For BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, the association between oral contraceptive preparation (OCP) use and breast cancer (BC) risk is still unclear. METHODS Breast camcer risk associations were estimated from OCP data on 6030 BRCA1 and 3809 BRCA2 mutation carriers using age-dependent Cox regression, stratified by study and birth cohort. Prospective, left-truncated retrospective and full-cohort retrospective analyses were performed. RESULTS For BRCA1 mutation carriers, OCP use was not associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75 to 1.56), but in the left-truncated and full-cohort retrospective analyses, risks were increased by 26% (95% CI = 6% to 51%) and 39% (95% CI = 23% to 58%), respectively. For BRCA2 mutation carriers, OCP use was associated with BC risk in prospective analyses (HR = 1.75, 95% CI = 1.03 to 2.97), but retrospective analyses were inconsistent (left-truncated: HR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.33; full cohort: HR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.81). There was evidence of increasing risk with duration of use, especially before the first full-term pregnancy (BRCA1: both retrospective analyses, P < .001 and P = .001, respectively; BRCA2: full retrospective analysis, P = .002). CONCLUSIONS Prospective analyses did not show that past use of OCP is associated with an increased BC risk for BRCA1 mutation carriers in young middle-aged women (40-50 years). For BRCA2 mutation carriers, a causal association is also not likely at those ages. Findings between retrospective and prospective analyses were inconsistent and could be due to survival bias or a true association for younger women who were underrepresented in the prospective cohort. Given the uncertain safety of long-term OCP use for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, indications other than contraception should be avoided and nonhormonal contraceptive methods should be discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lieske H Schrijver
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Håkan Olsson
- Department of Oncology, Lund University Hospital
| | - Kelly-Anne Phillips
- Lund University, Lund, Sweden; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology
- Division of Cancer Medicine
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - David E Goldgar
- Department of Dermatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Karin Kast
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Medical Faculty and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany
| | - Christoph Engel
- Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund
- Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Leipzig, Germany
| | - Thea M Mooij
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Julian Adlard
- Yorkshire Regional Genetics Service, Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - Daniel Barrowdale
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK
| | - Rosemarie Davidson
- Department of Clinical Genetics, South Glasgow University Hospitals, Glasgow, UK
| | - Ros Eeles
- Oncogenetics Team, The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton, UK
| | - Steve Ellis
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Genomic Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Institute of Human Development, Manchester University, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Debra Frost
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK
| | - Louise Izatt
- Clinical Genetics, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Mary E Porteous
- South East of Scotland Regional Genetics Service, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
| | - Lucy E Side
- North East Thames Regional Genetics Service, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Lisa Walker
- Oxford Regional Genetics Service, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | | | | | - Dominique Leroux
- CHU de Grenoble, Hôpital Couple-Enfant, Département de Génétique, Grenoble, France
| | | | | | - Saundra S Buys
- Department of Medicine, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Melissa C Southey
- Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology
- Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Science at Monash Health, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | - Esther M John
- Department of Epidemiology, Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, CA
- Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA
| | - Wendy K Chung
- Department of Pediatrics and Medicine, Columbia University, New York, NY
| | - Mary B Daly
- Division of Population Science, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
| | - Anita Bane
- Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Juravinski Hospital and Cancer Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Christi J van Asperen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Encarna B Gómez Garcia
- Department of Clinical Genetics and GROW, School for Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Marian J E Mourits
- Department of Gynaecologic Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Theo A M van Os
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Marie-José Roos-Blom
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Michael L Friedlander
- Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
- Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, Australia
| | - Sue-Anne McLachlan
- Department of Medicine, St. Vincent’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- Division of Cancer Medicine
- Department of Medical Oncology, St Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Australia
| | - Christian F Singer
- Department of OB/GYN and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Yen Y Tan
- Department of OB/GYN and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Lenka Foretova
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic, Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology
| | - Marie Navratilova
- Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic, Center for Familial Breast and Ovarian Cancer, Center for Integrated Oncology
- Medical Faculty, University of Cologne and University Hospital Cologne, Germany
| | | | - Trinidad Caldes
- Molecular Oncology Laboratory, Hospital Clinico San Carlos, IdISSC, CIBERONC, Martin Lagos s/n, Madrid, Spain
| | - Jacques Simard
- Genomics Center, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec Research Center and Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada
| | - Edith Olah
- Department of Molecular Genetics, National Institute of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Anna Jakubowska
- Department of Genetics and Pathology, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland
| | - Brita Arver
- Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Ana Osorio
- Human Genetics Group, Spanish National Cancer Centre, Madrid, Spain
| | - Catherine Noguès
- Oncogénétique Clinique, Institut Paoli-Calmettes and Aix Marseille Univ, INSERM, IRD, SESSTIM, Marseille, France
| | - Nadine Andrieu
- INSERM U900, Paris, France
- Institut Curie, Paris, France
- Ecole des Mines de Paris, ParisTech, Fontainebleau, France
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK
| | - Flora E van Leeuwen
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - John L Hopper
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Roger L Milne
- Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Cancer Epidemiology Centre, Cancer Council Victoria, Victoria, Australia
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK
| | - Matti A Rookus
- Department of Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - EMBRACE, GENEPSO, BCFR, HEBON, kConFab, and IBCCS
- Lund University, Lund, Sweden; Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology
- Research Department, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Epidemiology
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Successful Repatriation of Breast Cancer Surveillance for High-Risk Women to the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Clin Breast Cancer 2017; 18:282-288. [PMID: 29191429 DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2017.10.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2017] [Revised: 09/29/2017] [Accepted: 10/18/2017] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since April 2013, the UK's National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) centers have been obliged to provide services for women at the highest risk of breast cancer, including those carrying highly penetrant single gene mutations (BRCA1, BRCA2, TP53). Since then, such individuals previously undergoing surveillance in the Royal Marsden Hospital were referred to their local NHSBSP centers. We aimed to assess patient experience of surveillance provided by local NHSBSP services at 1 and 3 years after repatriation. PATIENTS AND METHODS High-risk gene mutation carriers referred to the NHSBSP for breast cancer surveillance were identified from a departmental database in the Cancer Genetics Unit and invited to complete questionnaires about their experience of surveillance under this new pathway, first in 2014 and again in 2016. RESULTS Three hundred forty-six individuals were invited to participate in 2014, of whom 182 responded (53%). A total of 464 patients were invited in 2016, of whom 246 (53%) completed the second questionnaire. Ninety-four percent of patients with residual breast tissue received some screening at the first (n = 161) and second (n = 185) time points. Ninety-one percent of patients (n = 146) received at least recommended surveillance in the year preceding the initial survey, a proportion decreasing slightly by the second time point (n = 164, 87%). Seventeen percent of individuals required additional diagnostic investigations, with cancers detected in 2%. These proportions remained stable between surveys. CONCLUSION Repatriation of high-risk individuals from Royal Marsden Hospital to NHSBSP centers has been successfully accomplished. Most individuals received appropriate recommended annual surveillance. Further improvements are required to ensure equal and timely provision of recommended surveillance.
Collapse
|
12
|
van Driel CMG, Oosterwijk JC, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, van Asperen CJ, Zeijlmans van Emmichoven IA, de Vries J, Mourits MJE, Henneman L, Timmermans DRM, de Bock GH. Psychological factors associated with the intention to choose for risk-reducing mastectomy in family cancer clinic attendees. Breast 2016; 30:66-72. [PMID: 27639031 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.08.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/22/2016] [Revised: 08/30/2016] [Accepted: 08/30/2016] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Women seeking counseling because of familial breast cancer occurrence face difficult decisions, such as whether and when to opt for risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) in case of BRCA1/2 mutation. Only limited research has been done to identify the psychological factors associated with the decision for RRM. This study investigated which psychological factors are related to the intention to choose for RRM. MATERIALS & METHODS A cohort of 486 cancer-unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer completed the following questionnaires prior to genetic counseling: the Cancer Worry Scale, Positive And Negative Affect Scale, Perceived Personal Control Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and State Anxiety Scale and questions regarding socio-demographic characteristics, family history, risk perception and RRM intention. Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze the relation between psychological factors and women's intention to choose for RRM. RESULTS Factors associated with RRM intention were high positive affect (OR = 1.86, 95%CI = 1.12-3.08), high negative affect (OR = 2.52, 95%CI = 1.44-4.43), high cancer worry (OR = 1.65, 95%CI = 1.00-2.72), high perceived personal control (OR = 3.58, 95%CI = 2.18-5.89), high risk-perception (OR = 1.85, 95%CI = 1.15-2.95) and having children (OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 1.21-3.50). CONCLUSION Negative and positive affects play an important role in the intention for RRM. Furthermore, perceived personal control over the situation is associated with an intention for RRM. In addition to focusing on accurate risk communication, counseling should pay attention to the influence of perceived control and emotions to facilitate decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C M G van Driel
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands.
| | - J C Oosterwijk
- Department of Genetics, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - E J Meijers-Heijboer
- Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C J van Asperen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - I A Zeijlmans van Emmichoven
- Department of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - J de Vries
- Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - M J E Mourits
- Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - L Henneman
- Department of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - D R M Timmermans
- EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G H de Bock
- Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center Groningen, PO Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Kelly KM, Ellington L, Schoenberg N, Jackson T, Dickinson S, Porter K, Leventhal H, Andrykowski M. Genetic counseling content: How does it impact health behavior? J Behav Med 2015; 38:766-76. [PMID: 25533642 PMCID: PMC4478279 DOI: 10.1007/s10865-014-9613-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2014] [Accepted: 12/08/2014] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Women with hereditary breast-ovarian cancer face decisions about screening (transvaginal ultrasound, CA125, mammography, breast exams) and proactive (before cancer) or reactive (after cancer) surgery (oophorectomy, mastectomy). The content of genetic counseling and its relation to these key health behaviors is largely unexamined. Ashkenazi Jewish women (n = 78) were surveyed through the process of genetic testing and had audiorecorded counseling sessions available for Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count analysis. Proportions for participant and counselor cognitive and affective content during sessions were used as primary predictor variables in linear mixed models for change in intentions for screening and treatment and in self-reported screening. Cognitive and affective content were important predictors of behavior. Counselor cognitive content was associated with ovarian screening. An interaction effect also emerged for CA-125, such that counselor cognitive content plus participant cognitive content or counselor affective content were associated with more screening. Teasing out the factors in risk communication that impact decision-making are critical, and affect from a risk communicator can spur action, such as cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kimberly M Kelly
- Mary Babb Randolph Cancer Center and School of Pharmacy, Health Science Center, West Virginia University, PO Box 9510, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA.
| | - Lee Ellington
- College of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Nancy Schoenberg
- Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Thomas Jackson
- Department of Statistics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
| | | | - Kyle Porter
- Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
| | - Howard Leventhal
- Institute for Health, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
| | - Michael Andrykowski
- Department of Behavioral Science, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW This article reviews the evidence that underpins breast cancer screening and prevention strategies for women at high risk of the disease, with a particular focus on evidence published in the last 18 months. The review is timely because the US National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have recently updated relevant guidelines that inform practice. RECENT FINDINGS In the recently published literature, there have been several important findings. A meta-analysis of randomized trials of selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), along with the first results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study II trial, further support the use of SERMs and aromatase inhibitors in the primary prevention of breast cancer. A large observational study has provided evidence that the SERM tamoxifen may be efficacious for breast cancer prevention in women who carry mutations in the breast cancer predisposition genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2. Several observational studies have suggested that contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy, following a diagnosis of breast cancer, may reduce mortality. SUMMARY Evidence regarding the optimal management of women at high risk of breast cancer continues to evolve and needs to be rapidly implemented into clinical practice.
Collapse
|
15
|
Managing symptoms and maximizing quality of life after preventive interventions for cancer risk reduction. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015; 27:40-4. [DOI: 10.1097/gco.0000000000000146] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
16
|
Vos JR, Teixeira N, van der Kolk DM, Mourits MJE, Rookus MA, van Leeuwen FE, Collée M, van Asperen CJ, Mensenkamp AR, Ausems MGEM, van Os TAM, Meijers-Heijboer HEJ, Gómez-Garcia EB, Vasen HF, Brohet RM, van der Hout AH, Jansen L, Oosterwijk JC, de Bock GH. Variation in mutation spectrum partly explains regional differences in the breast cancer risk of female BRCA mutation carriers in the Netherlands. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014; 23:2482-91. [PMID: 25103822 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-13-1279] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We aimed to quantify previously observed relatively high cancer risks in BRCA2 mutation carriers (BRCA2 carriers) older than 60 in the Northern Netherlands, and to analyze whether these could be explained by mutation spectrum or population background risk. METHODS This consecutive cohort study included all known pathogenic BRCA1/2 carriers in the Northern Netherlands (N = 1,050). Carrier and general reference populations were: BRCA1/2 carriers in the rest of the Netherlands (N = 2,013) and the general population in both regions. Regional differences were assessed with HRs and ORs. HRs were adjusted for birth year and mutation spectrum. RESULTS All BRCA1 carriers and BRCA2 carriers younger than 60 had a significantly lower breast cancer risk in the Northern Netherlands; HRs were 0.66 and 0.64, respectively. Above age 60, the breast cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers in the Northern Netherlands was higher than in the rest of the Netherlands [HR, 3.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.11-14.35]. Adjustment for mutational spectrum changed the HRs for BRCA1, BRCA2 <60, and BRCA2 ≥60 years by -3%, +32%, and +11% to 0.75, 0.50, and 2.61, respectively. There was no difference in background breast cancer incidence between the two regions (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.97-1.09). CONCLUSIONS Differences in mutation spectrum only partly explain the regional differences in breast cancer risk in BRCA2 carriers, and for an even smaller part in BRCA1 carriers. IMPACT The increased risk in BRCA2 carriers older than 60 may warrant extension of intensive breast screening beyond age 60.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Janet R Vos
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
| | - Natalia Teixeira
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Dorina M van der Kolk
- Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Marian J E Mourits
- Department of Gynecological Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Matti A Rookus
- Department of Epidemiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Flora E van Leeuwen
- Department of Epidemiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Margriet Collée
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Christi J van Asperen
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Arjen R Mensenkamp
- Department of Human Genetics, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
| | - Margreet G E M Ausems
- Department of Medical Genetics, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Theo A M van Os
- Department of Clinical Genetics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Encarna B Gómez-Garcia
- Department of Clinical Genetics, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Hans F Vasen
- The Netherlands Foundation for the Detection of Hereditary Tumours, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Richard M Brohet
- Department of Epidemiology, the Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Annemarie H van der Hout
- Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Liesbeth Jansen
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Jan C Oosterwijk
- Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | - Geertruida H de Bock
- Department of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Use of Exogenous Hormones and Risks of Breast and Ovarian Cancers in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers; Methodological and Clinical Considerations. CURRENT BREAST CANCER REPORTS 2014. [DOI: 10.1007/s12609-014-0145-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
18
|
BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are potentially at higher cardiovascular risk. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2014; 91:159-71. [PMID: 24529552 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2014.01.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2013] [Revised: 12/24/2013] [Accepted: 01/14/2014] [Indexed: 01/03/2023] Open
Abstract
BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have an elevated risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer at a relatively young age. Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy is an established strategy to tremendously reduce the risk of ovarian cancer. It is recommended to perform this surgery at age 35-40 years (BRCA1) and at age 40-45 years (BRCA2) resulting in an early and abrupt menopause. BRCA1/2 mutation carriers are potentially at higher risk of cardiovascular diseases due to early surgical menopause, and cardiotoxic effects of adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. Furthermore, preliminary results of experimental studies suggest a possible causative function of the BRCA genes in cardiovascular risk. More research on cardiovascular health risks in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers is needed, especially in the field of cardio-oncology, requiring additional attention to potentially cumulative effects on cardiovascular risks in this specific group of women.
Collapse
|